Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it redeems a promotional code, with no mention of side effects (e.g., code consumption), idempotency, error conditions, or authorization requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation type tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, containing no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks important contextual information such as what the tool returns exactly (the API key), how errors are surfaced, or any caveats about code validity. It does not fully specify the complete behavior for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is 'code'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that it is a 'promotional code', which helps the agent understand the parameter's role. However, it does not provide additional format details or source context beyond the schema constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Redeem') and identifies the resource ('a promotional code') and the outcome ('for a new API key'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools list_surfaces and run_verdict, which perform different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (when you have a promotional code) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no direct guidance about when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.